Which Camera?

[FungiJohn]

Hi

I would certainly suggest looking at the Canon G series.

Here's a few images taken with the Canon G9









John

[nightshade]

I like the looks of the Panasonic LX5, the Canon G9, BUT if I had the money it would be the Nikon P7000.

[wizzo]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

Hi

I would certainly suggest looking at the Canon G series.

Here's a few images taken with the Canon G9









John

I couldn't agree more John. I've got a G series Canon, and I just love it. These cameras can take shots that would rival most, if not all, SLR's. Sometimes we get lost in all the 'bells and whistles, pixels and lenses', instead of looking for the right shot, we sometimes expect flagship cameras to do all of the hard work for us. Of course, in the right hands, a decent DSLR, will out-perform almost all compacts, but for the vast majority of us, it really wont make any difference. As Ken Rockwell says....if were going to go around looking at our shots with a printers loop, should we really be taking pictures at all? If anyone's really that worried about sharpness, I would just go straight for a full frame Nikon and a couple of prime lenses. If you're not going to be enlarging your prints beyond A3, a decent compact will do a super job.
On the subject of the Canon series. Has anyone tried the new G12. If so, how did you find it? Thanks - Wizzo

[Endrick]

Nigel B,
Oh dear - I hate having to explain myself! It makes me look as if I know something - or not! Please don't take me for a great photographer - I'm not. I'm just a guy who takes pictures and happens to be a member of a camera club and picked up some basics along the way.

I wrote the post on the basis of the use the camera would be put to. Perhaps I was just too brief. So here goes:

The Canon S95 takes pictures which rival DSLR pictures and came within the £300 budget. This camera has the same sensor as the G12 but has a slightly faster but less flexible lens. I have tried both the G12 and S95 and they are first class compacts. On the face of it the S95 offers nothing over a £70 compact. Not so - this camera has a superb lens and much bigger sensor than most compacts.

This means amongst other things that in less than perfect light you can still get really excellent shots. Most compacts have a very small sensor indeed - far too small for the amount of pixels squeezed onto them. High megapixels on these small sensors are counter productive and I'm afraid anything more than about 6 - maybe 7 megapixels on these tiny sensors creates a lot of noise in other than perfect light. High megapixels and compact sensors are a marketing ploy with the unfortunate consequence of poorer pictures.

Coming on to magnification: Very high ranges in any lens is a compromise. For SLRs both Canon and Nikon do 18-200 lenses (i.e 11x) - and very good they are too. They weigh several times what a compact camera weighs nevertheless they do have issues - google the lenses and you will find reports. I own the Nikon 18-200 and it can take very good pictures but it's nowhere near as good as my prime lenses.

Now witness the Canon SX30 compact. It has a 35x lens - at the long end it is the equivalent of an 840mm lens! Now to buy the equivalent in Canon or Nikon DSLR lenses you are talking in the region of about £7000 with a £400 1.4x teleconverter in Nikons case. The lens will weigh about 10lbs! To use it in other than perfect light it will need to be used on a tripod. Needless to say it does not have a zoom capability.

I haven't tried SX30 but I know enough about the light gathering power of lenses and sensors to assure you that it is utterly impossible to get anything remotely as good in a £300 camera. Nevertheless had Bigdave60dog wanted a camera to take identification pictures of slavonian grebes 600m away in perfect sunlight I may well have suggested he look at this camera! I have tried other superzoom bridge cameras before but for me the pictures - particularly at the long end - are not what I am happy with and believe me I don't look at blown up pictures through a magnifying glass!

Apologies for being long winded

Malcolm

[wizzo]

Originally Posted by Endrick

Nigel B,
Oh dear - I hate having to explain myself! It makes me look as if I know something - or not! Please don't take me for a great photographer - I'm not. I'm just a guy who takes pictures and happens to be a member of a camera club and picked up some basics along the way.

I wrote the post on the basis of the use the camera would be put to. Perhaps I was just too brief. So here goes:

The Canon S95 takes pictures which rival DSLR pictures and came within the £300 budget. This camera has the same sensor as the G12 but has a slightly faster but less flexible lens. I have tried both the G12 and S95 and they are first class compacts. On the face of it the S95 offers nothing over a £70 compact. Not so - this camera has a superb lens and much bigger sensor than most compacts.


Great post Malcomn
This means amongst other things that in less than perfect light you can still get really excellent shots. Most compacts have a very small sensor indeed - far too small for the amount of pixels squeezed onto them. High megapixels on these small sensors are counter productive and I'm afraid anything more than about 6 - maybe 7 megapixels on these tiny sensors creates a lot of noise in other than perfect light. High megapixels and compact sensors are a marketing ploy with the unfortunate consequence of poorer pictures.

Coming on to magnification: Very high ranges in any lens is a compromise. For SLRs both Canon and Nikon do 18-200 lenses (i.e 11x) - and very good they are too. They weigh several times what a compact camera weighs nevertheless they do have issues - google the lenses and you will find reports. I own the Nikon 18-200 and it can take very good pictures but it's nowhere near as good as my prime lenses.

Now witness the Canon SX30 compact. It has a 35x lens - at the long end it is the equivalent of an 840mm lens! Now to buy the equivalent in Canon or Nikon DSLR lenses you are talking in the region of about £7000 with a £400 1.4x teleconverter in Nikons case. The lens will weigh about 10lbs! To use it in other than perfect light it will need to be used on a tripod. Needless to say it does not have a zoom capability.

I haven't tried SX30 but I know enough about the light gathering power of lenses and sensors to assure you that it is utterly impossible to get anything remotely as good in a £300 camera. Nevertheless had Bigdave60dog wanted a camera to take identification pictures of slavonian grebes 600m away in perfect sunlight I may well have suggested he look at this camera! I have tried other superzoom bridge cameras before but for me the pictures - particularly at the long end - are not what I am happy with and believe me I don't look at blown up pictures through a magnifying glass!

Apologies for being long winded

Malcolm

Great post Malcolm! Kind of wish I could have put it so eliquently - Wizzo

[bigdave60dog]

Between you all and looking at sample shots of different bridge cameras You have now now convinced me to buy an EOS 350 with the appropriate lens`s. Not my original brief but I have always known the singing and dancing cameras are fine but they are all only as good as the lens. I am back to carrying gear with me.
I have just seen an advert for a new camera (maybe Samsung) that has macro, zoom macro and its own built in GPS. All at around £175. Exactly right for an invertebrate recorder.
Oh well! If these turn out to be any good I will have re-auction the EOS.
Thanks everyone.
Dave